From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MAINTAINERS file Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:28:04 -0500 Message-ID: <87tzjmnsiz.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> References: <18375.18663.981150.252393@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <87od9wt19m.fsf@elegiac.orebokech.com> <87tzjnvjhc.fsf@red-bean.com> <87zlte3848.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <877igipc17.fsf@jbms.ath.cx> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204662697 354 80.91.229.12 (4 Mar 2008 20:31:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 20:31:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Juanma Barranquero , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 04 21:31:53 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JWdlO-0002NP-Tz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:29:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JWdkr-0005tS-WE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:28:54 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JWdkG-0005f6-FG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:28:16 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JWdkE-0005e7-Sz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:28:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JWdkE-0005dx-M6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:28:14 -0500 Original-Received: from deleuze.hcoop.net ([69.90.123.67]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JWdk7-0003lh-1Y; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:28:07 -0500 Original-Received: from jbms.wv.cc.cmu.edu ([128.237.247.38] helo=localhost) by deleuze.hcoop.net with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JWdk5-0003nS-J2; Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:28:05 -0500 X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:91314 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: [snip] >> (In fact, to the extent >> that using an inferior tool may interfere with Emacs development, the >> Emacs project, and consequently free software as a whole, is harmed.) > I'm sure you don't want to claim that bzr is "inferior". (If you do, > please provide some evidence.) No one here will want to use an > inferior tool. The issue is, all things being approximately equal, > which tool to choose. I'm not claiming that bzr is necessarily inferior; I don't know enough about bzr to be sure. What I'm claiming is that it _might_ be inferior, and it seems the decision to use it was based on largely on it being "GNU" and seeming to be at least "decent". In particular, it seems that the decision to use it was not based on any actual experience in using bzr or any alternatives. One thing that git has going for it over the alternatives is a very large and active developer base. >> Favoring projects that have the "GNU" label suggests a real motivation >> of merely promoting the "GNU" name. >> >> You may argue that promoting the "GNU" name is important for promoting >> free software, but I don't buy that. > This is a misunderstanding: we are not talking about names or labels. > Being a GNU package means much more than just a word in a name. Sure, being a GNU package means that the package is consistent with free software ideology, but it is important to realize that _not_ being a GNU package does not mean that it is inconsistent with free software ideology. In particular, you can't claim that using bzr will somehow help the free software movement more than using Git or Mercurial will. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard